Scribd
Upload
27 views2 pages

Verzonilla vs. Pascua

The complaint alleged that the respondent falsified two deeds of extrajudicial settlement by forging signatures. The respondent admitted preparing and notarizing the deeds but denied any irregularities. The court ruled that the respondent violated the rules on notarial practice by assisting in an activity aimed at tax evasion and reducing the correct taxes due through falsifying documents.

Uploaded by

kristian datinguinoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views2 pages

Verzonilla vs. Pascua

The complaint alleged that the respondent falsified two deeds of extrajudicial settlement by forging signatures. The respondent admitted preparing and notarizing the deeds but denied any irregularities. The court ruled that the respondent violated the rules on notarial practice by assisting in an activity aimed at tax evasion and reducing the correct taxes due through falsifying documents.

Uploaded by

kristian datinguinoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA vs. ATTY. VICTORIANO G.

PASCUA
A.C. No. 6655, October 11, 2011

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:

Pacita Verzonilla filed a complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty.Victoriano Pascua


for falsifying a public document and evading the payment of correct taxes through the use of falsified
documents. It was alleged that respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra Judicial
Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim. The two deeds were executed by and for
the benefit of Lope's surviving spouse Caridad Tabarrelos and her children the complainant, in favor of
spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers
and book numbers in the notarial portion.

Complainant avers that both deeds are spurious because all the heirs' signatures were falsified. In his
comment, respondent admits having prepared and notarized it, but denies any irregularity in their
execution.

Issue:

Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

Ruling: Yes

With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state the true
consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction,
respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an
unlawful purpose.  As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for
the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct
taxes due.  His act clearly violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
reads:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Xxxx

Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance of the law, he
likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an
Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and
credit upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering its nature and purpose.

You might also like